From: "lihuisong (C)" <lihuisong@huawei.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 04/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Rearrange acpi_processor_evaluate_lpi()
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2026 19:51:55 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bd254106-0d09-420c-8a56-a63d637db683@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3426078.44csPzL39Z@rafael.j.wysocki>
On 7/9/2026 8:33 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>
> Rearrange acpi_processor_evaluate_lpi() to make it somewhat easier to
> follow and diagnose (if need be). In particular:
>
> * Rename some local variables and reorder their definitions.
>
> * Change the type of local variables used for storing firmware-provided
> values to unsigned int (they cannot be negative).
>
> * Eliminate local variable "loop" that is redundant.
>
> * Avoid explicit pointer arithmetic.
>
> * Print the correct number of _LPI state packages in the final debug
> message.
>
> No intentional functional impact beyond debug output.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++++----------------
> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> index e8682f779249..cd506e9e5a84 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> @@ -872,12 +872,12 @@ static int obj_get_integer(union acpi_object *obj, u32 *value)
> static int acpi_processor_evaluate_lpi(acpi_handle handle,
> struct acpi_lpi_states_array *info)
> {
> - acpi_status status;
> - int ret = 0;
> - int pkg_count, state_idx = 1, loop;
> struct acpi_buffer buffer = { ACPI_ALLOCATE_BUFFER, NULL };
> - union acpi_object *lpi_data;
> + union acpi_object *lpi_data, *lpi_pkg;
> + unsigned int lpi_pkg_count, state_idx;
> struct acpi_lpi_state *lpi_state;
> + acpi_status status;
> + int ret = 0;
>
> status = acpi_evaluate_object(handle, "_LPI", NULL, &buffer);
> if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> @@ -895,41 +895,46 @@ static int acpi_processor_evaluate_lpi(acpi_handle handle,
> goto end;
> }
>
> - pkg_count = lpi_data->package.elements[2].integer.value;
> + lpi_pkg_count = lpi_data->package.elements[2].integer.value;
>
> /* Validate number of power states. */
> - if (pkg_count < 1 || pkg_count != lpi_data->package.count - 3) {
> + if (!lpi_pkg_count || lpi_pkg_count != lpi_data->package.count - 3) {
> acpi_handle_debug(handle, "Invalid _LPI state count\n");
> ret = -ENODATA;
> goto end;
> }
>
> - lpi_state = kzalloc_objs(*lpi_state, pkg_count);
> + lpi_state = kzalloc_objs(*lpi_state, lpi_pkg_count);
> if (!lpi_state) {
> ret = -ENOMEM;
> goto end;
> }
>
> - info->size = pkg_count;
> + info->size = lpi_pkg_count;
> info->entries = lpi_state;
>
> - /* LPI States start at index 3 */
> - for (loop = 3; state_idx <= pkg_count; loop++, state_idx++, lpi_state++) {
> - union acpi_object *element, *pkg_elem, *obj;
> + /* _LPI State packages start at index 3. */
> + lpi_pkg = &lpi_data->package.elements[3];
>
> - element = &lpi_data->package.elements[loop];
> - if (element->type != ACPI_TYPE_PACKAGE || element->package.count < 7)
> + for (state_idx = 1; state_idx <= lpi_pkg_count;
> + state_idx++, lpi_state++, lpi_pkg++) {
> + union acpi_object *lpi_pkg_elem, *obj;
> +
> + lpi_state->index = state_idx;
> +
> + if (lpi_pkg->type != ACPI_TYPE_PACKAGE || lpi_pkg->package.count < 7)
> continue;
>
> - pkg_elem = element->package.elements;
> + lpi_pkg_elem = lpi_pkg->package.elements;
>
> - obj = pkg_elem + 6;
> + /* Get the entry method first and skip the state if that fails. */
> + obj = &lpi_pkg_elem[6];
> if (obj->type == ACPI_TYPE_BUFFER) {
> struct acpi_power_register *reg;
>
> if (obj->buffer.length < sizeof(*reg)) {
> acpi_handle_debug(handle,
> - "Invalid register data for _LPI state %d\n",
> + "Invalid register data for _LPI state %u\n",
> state_idx);
> continue;
> }
> @@ -937,7 +942,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_evaluate_lpi(acpi_handle handle,
> reg = (struct acpi_power_register *)obj->buffer.pointer;
> if (reg->space_id != ACPI_ADR_SPACE_FIXED_HARDWARE) {
> acpi_handle_debug(handle,
> - "Unsupported entry method for _LPI state %d\n",
> + "Unsupported entry method for _LPI state %u\n",
> state_idx);
> continue;
> }
> @@ -949,36 +954,35 @@ static int acpi_processor_evaluate_lpi(acpi_handle handle,
> lpi_state->address = obj->integer.value;
> } else {
> acpi_handle_debug(handle,
> - "Invalid entry method for _LPI state %d\n",
> + "Invalid entry method for _LPI state %u\n",
> state_idx);
> continue;
> }
>
> - lpi_state->index = state_idx;
> - if (obj_get_integer(pkg_elem + 0, &lpi_state->min_residency)) {
> + if (obj_get_integer(&lpi_pkg_elem[0], &lpi_state->min_residency)) {
> acpi_handle_debug(handle,
> - "Assuming 10 us min. residency for _LPI state %d\n",
> + "Assuming 10 us min. residency for _LPI state %u\n",
> state_idx);
> lpi_state->min_residency = 10;
> }
>
> - if (obj_get_integer(pkg_elem + 1, &lpi_state->wake_latency)) {
> + if (obj_get_integer(&lpi_pkg_elem[1], &lpi_state->wake_latency)) {
> acpi_handle_debug(handle,
> - "Assuming 10 us wake latency for _LPI state %d\n",
> + "Assuming 10 us wake latency for _LPI state %u\n",
> state_idx);
> lpi_state->wake_latency = 10;
> }
>
> - if (obj_get_integer(pkg_elem + 2, &lpi_state->flags))
> + if (obj_get_integer(&lpi_pkg_elem[2], &lpi_state->flags))
> lpi_state->flags = 0;
>
> - if (obj_get_integer(pkg_elem + 3, &lpi_state->arch_flags))
> + if (obj_get_integer(&lpi_pkg_elem[3], &lpi_state->arch_flags))
> lpi_state->arch_flags = 0;
>
> - if (obj_get_integer(pkg_elem + 4, &lpi_state->res_cnt_freq))
> + if (obj_get_integer(&lpi_pkg_elem[4], &lpi_state->res_cnt_freq))
> lpi_state->res_cnt_freq = 1;
>
> - if (obj_get_integer(pkg_elem + 5, &lpi_state->enable_parent_state))
> + if (obj_get_integer(&lpi_pkg_elem[5], &lpi_state->enable_parent_state))
> lpi_state->enable_parent_state = 0;
How about move parsing lpi_pkg_elem[6] code to here?
>
> /* Skip elements [7-8] i.e. Residency/Usage counters. */
> @@ -987,16 +991,16 @@ static int acpi_processor_evaluate_lpi(acpi_handle handle,
> * Avoid out-of-bounds access if the size of the package is less
> * than expected.
> */
> - if (element->package.count < 10)
> + if (lpi_pkg->package.count < 10)
> continue;
>
> - obj = pkg_elem + 9;
> + obj = &lpi_pkg_elem[9];
> if (obj->type == ACPI_TYPE_STRING)
> strscpy(lpi_state->desc, obj->string.pointer,
> ACPI_CX_DESC_LEN);
> }
>
> - acpi_handle_debug(handle, "Found %d power states\n", state_idx);
> + acpi_handle_debug(handle, "Found %u power states\n", lpi_pkg_count);
> end:
> kfree(buffer.pointer);
> return ret;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-16 11:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-09 12:29 [PATCH v1 00/17] ACPI: processor: idle/intel_idle: Add ACPI _LPI support to intel_idle Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-09 12:30 ` [PATCH v1 01/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Expand _LPI package sanity checks Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 11:22 ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-16 9:05 ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-09 12:31 ` [PATCH v1 02/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Ignore _LPI states with SYSTEMIO entry method Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 11:24 ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-16 9:08 ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-09 12:32 ` [PATCH v1 03/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Unify debug in acpi_processor_evaluate_lpi() Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 11:27 ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-16 9:16 ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-09 12:33 ` [PATCH v1 04/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Rearrange acpi_processor_evaluate_lpi() Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 11:29 ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-16 9:46 ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-16 10:36 ` Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel)
2026-07-16 11:51 ` lihuisong (C) [this message]
2026-07-16 12:57 ` Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel)
2026-07-09 12:34 ` [PATCH v1 05/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Split acpi_processor_evaluate_lpi() Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 13:17 ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-16 11:55 ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-16 12:58 ` Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel)
2026-07-17 2:04 ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-09 12:35 ` [PATCH v1 06/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Introduce lpi_state_debug() Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-09 12:36 ` [PATCH v1 07/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Rearrange acpi_processor_get_lpi_info() Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 13:18 ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-16 12:06 ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-09 12:37 ` [PATCH v1 08/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Rework first-level _LPI states processing Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 13:20 ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-16 12:44 ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-16 13:03 ` Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel)
2026-07-09 12:37 ` [PATCH v1 09/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Drop redundant _LPI presence checks Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 13:21 ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-16 12:47 ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-09 12:38 ` [PATCH v1 10/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Rearrange loop in acpi_processor_get_lpi_info() Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 13:21 ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-16 12:49 ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-09 12:39 ` [PATCH v1 11/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Rework flatten_lpi_states() Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 13:23 ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-17 1:36 ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-09 12:39 ` [PATCH v1 12/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Introduce too_many_states() for _LPI Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 13:23 ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-17 1:38 ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-09 12:40 ` [PATCH v1 13/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Introduce acpi_processor_extract_lpi_info() Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 13:32 ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-17 1:46 ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-09 12:41 ` [PATCH v1 14/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Relocate acpi_processor_extract_lpi_info() Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 13:30 ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-17 1:56 ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-09 12:42 ` [PATCH v1 15/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Add switch for strict _LPI processing Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 13:33 ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-17 1:58 ` lihuisong (C)
2026-07-09 12:43 ` [PATCH v1 16/17] intel_idle: Prepare for adding ACPI _LPI support Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-09 12:44 ` [PATCH v1 17/17] intel_idle: Add " Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-13 14:56 ` Sudeep Holla
2026-07-14 13:25 ` Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bd254106-0d09-420c-8a56-a63d637db683@huawei.com \
--to=lihuisong@huawei.com \
--cc=Sudeep.Holla@arm.com \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox